Most libraries have one or more librarians that are “materials selection specialists” responsible for the review, evaluation, and selection of materials for their libraries. When selecting materials, librarians may follow selection policies established by their libraries to be sure they select materials that are appropriate for their collections and that are likely to be of interest to their patrons. Librarians may look first for materials that have appropriate content based on subject matter and audience level and that are complementary to other holdings in the library's collection. In addition to considering content, librarians may further consider material formats (e.g., print, nonprint, electronic, multimedia) to meet the needs and learning styles of a diverse patron population. They may also track budget and funding information to be sure that the materials they select are within budgetary guidelines established by their institutions.
Materials selection for libraries is an important function that involves expertise in understanding the library's collection and needs. It also involves a number of clerical tasks. Librarians and acquisition staff review vendor offerings, accept and decline those offerings, and for those offers that are accepted, follow the acquisition from ordering to receiving, accounting, cataloging, labeling, and shelving the new materials. Failure to accurately carry out these clerical tasks can result in unintentional duplication of materials because one or more librarians is not aware of a selection made by another librarian, or it can result in gaps in the collection because one or more librarians believes incorrectly that another librarian ordered a particular item. Communication and sharing of accurate information at the different stages of the acquisition process, therefore, is important in helping libraries avoid such problems with materials selection.
A current vendor business practice of sending materials to libraries prior to approval complicates the selection and acquisition process. Some vendors allow libraries to participate in subscription or standing order plans that result in materials being sent automatically to the library with no option for reviewing or approving them prior to receipt or for returning them once they are received. The only way to stop receiving the materials is to cancel the subscription or standing order. Other vendors send materials automatically under an approval plan. Vendors complete mass mailings of the materials to numerous libraries for approval. A library is permitted to return the materials if they are not appropriate for its collection. These plans sometimes result in inefficiencies for both vendors and libraries. Vendors incur costs in sending materials to libraries that do not want them and in some cases, accepting returns of the materials and libraries incur costs in monitoring and canceling subscriptions and in some cases, returning materials that they do not want.
Cornell's Integrated Tool for Selection and Ordering at Cornell University Library ITSO CUL is a tool that was developed to improve vendor-library communications. It is a library materials selection Web-based tool that a selector accesses to perform selection tasks. It facilitates the process of reviewing vendor offerings and communicating information about selections between librarians responsible for materials selection. The ITSO CUL selection tool also has database and cataloging functionality so that records regarding ordered materials may be tracked. When the purchases are complete, information about the acquisitions may be cataloged in the libraries' collections databases.
Although the ITSO CUL selection tool allows selectors to review and approve materials before they are sent by a vendor, it is tailored for use with a particular integrated library system and therefore, cannot be used with another library's integrated library system without modifications and customizations. Even if the ITSO CUL selection tool could be modified easily for use with many other integrated library systems, only libraries would benefit from the widespread deployment of the tool. Vendors would still need to tailor their communications for compatibility with each library's selection tool and integrated library system. A vendor that would like to communicate information about a new offering may be required to tailor a different message for distribution to each library with which it would like to conduct business so that the message can be received at the library's selection tool and integrated library system. The process of tailoring communications for each library selection tool is an inefficient and error prone process.
The process of tailoring communications for different selection tools is also inefficient for libraries. Librarians that would like to receive materials from many different vendors may be required to work independently with each vendor of interest to communicate information about its selection tool and integrated library system so that it can resolve technical difficulties in communicating with the vendor. The time and resources devoted to such technical issues adds to a library's overhead costs and reduces the ability of librarians or other personnel to concentrate on materials selection and acquisition and on other tasks. Therefore, there is a need for a materials selection and acquisition tool that facilitates communications between multiple vendors and libraries and that reduces the need to modify and format communications for different selection tools and related integrated library systems in use by libraries.